Wells planners review flood-ordinance revisions; debate timing, valuation and maintenance exemptions

The Wells Planning Board extensively discussed proposed changes to the town’s floodplain ordinance on Oct. 6, considering alternatives for when the 50% “substantial improvement” threshold should trigger mandatory flood-proofing and which repairs should be excluded as maintenance.

Planning staff presented two draft ordinance versions: one that would delay required flood-proofing and a second that would bring flood-proofing obligations earlier. The key policy choice is how to measure “market value” of a structure and whether the town should use a 10-year, 5-year or a lifetime period for calculating cumulative improvements that count toward the 50% threshold.

Staff and board members referenced Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidance and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection rules in the discussion. Planning staff noted FEMA allows either an assessed-value adjustment to approximate market value or an estimate of structure replacement value (including or excluding depreciation), but cautioned the town cannot mix both methods.

Board members debated which costs should be treated as maintenance and therefore excluded from the substantial-improvement calculation. Topics raised included replacement of rotted deck stringers and joists, roofing replacement and sheathing thresholds, upgrades to plumbing and egress windows for life-safety code compliance, and bringing structural elements such as deck supports up to modern code with joist hangers or hurricane ties. Several members argued that life-safety code corrections and maintenance that address violations should be exempt from the substantial-improvement tally; staff agreed that the town’s building-code violation process already allows remedial work without counting it toward FEMA’s threshold in some cases, but said clarity is needed for consistent application.

The board discussed technical protective measures: one member recommended adding “hydraulic pressure” alongside “hydrostatic pressure” in foundation-design language, and members proposed specifying electrical and mechanical equipment ratings (for example, NEMA ratings) rather than requiring equipment to be completely watertight. Members also suggested including concrete or steel piles as preferred coastal elevation methods rather than only wood posts, citing observed failures in recent storm footage from other states.

On valuation methods, attendees discussed using insurance replacement-cost estimates or RSMeans construction cost guides as starting points and then applying a depreciation approach or, alternatively, eliminating depreciation in town guidance. Planning staff said they had drafted definitions without applying depreciation and would prepare a consolidated package to submit to the state floodplain agency (the Maine agency that administers FEMA guidance in the state) for review.

Board members asked staff to refine the draft language, to add clarifications about maintenance exemptions, and to prepare a consolidated ordinance package for state review. The board also discussed convening an additional workshop that would include the code office and potentially an insurance industry expert before bringing the proposed ordinance to a public hearing.